Interesting. You guys are obviously not representing the average citizens of any Western democracy, yet I wish we actually could let the people decide on these matters. Or even better, have a constitution which says you can do whatever you want with your own body

In my country because of the predomenantly Catholic believers, there is that hypocritical law that prohibits it, but, there are lots of red light districts in every major city and in almost all urbanized towns and there are few priests that can be found there talking with girls that they like to release with their sexual desires, and when they'd agreed to do the thing, they only need to proceed to the nearest motel or rent a VIP room within the bar.

In my country because of the predomenantly Catholic believers, there is that hypocritical law that prohibits it, but, there are lots of red light districts in every major city and in almost all urbanized towns and there are few priests that can be found there talking with girls that they like to release with their sexual desires, and when they'd agreed to do the thing, they only need to proceed to the nearest motel or rent a VIP room within the bar.

Prostitution is illegal in some Protestant countries too, and atheist ones. The Soviet Union banned it for instance. And in some Catholic countries, like Italy, it is legal. I don't think religion has much to do with why countries ban it or not.

Prostitution is illegal in some Protestant countries too, and atheist ones. The Soviet Union banned it for instance. And in some Catholic countries, like Italy, it is legal. I don't think religion has much to do with why countries ban it or not.

Well, as far as my country is concerned, the Catholic Church have lots of influence over the laws of the government of the state, and that includes the laws against prostitution and divorce.

Well, as far as my country is concerned, the Catholic Church have lots of influence over the laws of the government of the state, and that includes the laws against prostitution and divorce.

I don't see how one can have separation between state and church if the church's doctrines are legislated into laws that applies to everyone. In the West, abolitionists circumvent this by incorporating quasi-religious points as ideology, or political thought. For example, here it is outlawed as "violence against women". Yet, the law in question says nothing of women, or men, and applies equally if a 40-year old millionare, blind and handicapped, purchases sexual favors from a wealthy, middle-aged male prostitute. How this is "violence against women" (or, as is implicit, foreign poor women imported for the purpose of being exploited in a very gruesome way) was never explained. How can you use a sex-specific argument for any law, and further also not incorporate sex into the law itself? Gosh, the times, the mores.

This is, again, not saying I'd want to be involved in it, on either side. In a debate, however, I would;

Reproduction is a most basic and vital human function. Surely few would agree to penalize against renting out your womb for such purposes.

We all have different views of what is ethical and not, but I draw a most definite line between those who would conform me to a code of morality by threat of violence (the basic means of all legislation). And it's always their code of morality, incidentally.